Will there be a war between US and China?

[FairAndUnbiased]

Good to mention, it USSR fell apart not on a downward swing, but on an upward one! The economic reform they had finally began yielding money, and the biggest post-Breznev perturbation in the party have settled. They have thought they dodged a bullet, and then...

The Russians had a such as strong rise in seventies, because they had a strong rise in sixties, when the major design for state institutes was drafted. As in many books I read, there is a frequently repeated phrase: "Breznev has sleep walked the country into eighties" Lack of leadership.

The low point to USSR came when Breznev refused to follow his premier or every single thing. He spent a decade playing a tug of war with every of his subordinates, and every institute of state. He effectively turned the party against the state apparatus, for no apparent point to it at all. He simply did that for a reason he was such a crank himself. And that was at the point when a certain B-movie actor was running circles around his foreign policy, which was equally lacking any point to it.

A quote from a clever man that sums it all:
And the final nail to the coffin was the passing of 1977 constitution, which solidified the status quo. He wants a state with a party, or a party with a state? In the end, it came to CPSU becoming a party without state...

Xi Jinping doesn't look the be a Breznev yet. Sure, Xi Jinping consolidated power, and is relatively conservative and cautious. But that is not enough. Breznev was in power for 18 years (1964-1982). We will only know what Xi truly is in 2022-2027. If he stays in power for merely 2-3 terms, OK. If he stays longer, then not so OK. Right now it is only year 7. Li Keqiang is more marginalized than Wen Jiabao was but he is still not being explicitly contradicted like Premier Kosygin was under Breznev. He still has the freedom to dictate economic policy.

There are some differences with this analogy. The Soviet economy peaked in 1975 relative to the US economy at 57%. China has already overtaken that. the Soviets had always had a resource based economy which was stagnating rapidly while the Chinese economy is based on industrial production and services. Their innovation fell behind while China is becoming ever more innovative. GDP per capita in the Soviet Union was falling as a percentage of US GDP per capita, not rising. They overspent on the military and neglected consumer products, while China is the opposite in that military spending is relatively weak and consumer spending is roaring.

This is a big difference: while discontent in the USSR could rally around relative economic stagnation, there is no possibility for this in China. As long as the economy continues growing and becoming more sophisticated - and there's no reason why it would stop, and with the boom of software, it ensures that China is well positioned to grow further in frontier industries. The Soviets were falling away from the leading edge of technology while China is gaining and even holding it.

US today is also not US of 1970. US does not have strong, coolheaded leaders like Nixon, Ford and Carter at the helm, it has Donald Trump. In 1970 the US came off 3 decades of wage growth. in 2020 wages have stagnated for decades. The US economy was a creditor up to the 1970's, today it has been a debtor for decades. This debt has not been for consumption or investment purposes either, it has solely been to address crises and military spending. Energy consumption is flat, the retail market is flat. The debt is also not fully external, it is also internally owed from the citizens to the corporations such as student loans ($1.6T) which further puts a damper on the former largest driver of US growth - consumer spending.

On the people side, one important thing to note is that the Soviets tried to stop people from leaving but China does not. Anyone can leave China. 60 million tourists leave China every year, yet very few are overstaying visas. Meanwhile 1 million East Germans flooded across the border the second it opened. Among legal immigrants, Chinese are nowhere near Indians: Indians compose 46% of Canadian EE applicants and 74% of US H1B applicants, Chinese are barely 6% and 11%, respectively.

 

[Figaro]

I doubt there will be war. The US is already a very war weary country ... we are still fighting in Afghanistan and only fairly recently pulled out of Iraq. I don't think the US would be the first to fire the shot in any hypothetical conflict against China. Having said that, I also highly doubt China wants a war with the US, for obvious reason including the strength of the US economic and military system. Everyone knows there will be tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides if war broke out, not to mention the possibility of nuclear war. War will not happen imo.

I cannot comment on internal party affairs too much because I am not part of the circle. On the military/economic side though there's precedent to China's current situation: 1970's Soviet Union. Just like then, today China and the US cannot fight directly without total war.

At the time, the Soviet economy was resurgent and its military rising while the US was suffering from crises such as stagflation, oil embargo and Vietnam War. There was a real possibility that the Soviets would challenge the US for the #1 slot. Just like today, the US is suffering from coronavirus, automation and Iraq/Afghan war. All of these challenge the US domestic sphere and hinder its economy.

In 1970 the Soviet Union had 1/6 the nuclear weapons count of the US (3-5k vs. 20k) just like China nominally does (300 vs. 2000) today, though Global Times leaked 1000 warheads which would still be reasonable and doesn't change the balance too much - total war would still be devastating. The US was involved in Vietnam and withdrew in humiliation. Just like today it is involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is withdrawing.

Everything on the surface looked up for the Soviets and down for the Americans, just like today. But then in the 1980's, the Soviets fell apart while the US got stronger than ever.

The key for CPC leadership is to fully understand, in every way, why the Soviets fell apart in the 1980's after such a strong rise in the 1970's, and how the US rose from a relative low point in the 1970's to resurgence in the 1980's, a resurgence sufficiently powerful to cement itself with a unipolar position in the 1990's.

China's military is still not up to the level of the 70s Soviet military relative to the US. You have to remember the 1970s was the absolute peak of the USSR. The US is still the only military superpower today while China is not (even if this may not last for much longer). In the 70s, both the US and Soviet Union were military superpowers.

 

[Liaslia]

NEXT 6 MONTHS

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

China's military is still not up to the level of the 70s Soviet military relative to the US. You have to remember the 1970s was the absolute peak of the USSR. The US is still the only military superpower today while China is not (even if this may not last for much longer). In the 70s, both the US and Soviet Union were military superpowers.

I'd say that the geography and economics of the Soviet Union make it simply a rough comparison. Soviets, for instance, did not need as much to be a superpower, since they were always close to the action. They are literally in Europe, Middle East and East Asia. They're also very close to North America.

Meanwhile China is isolated in East Asia and just like the US, has to project power to get anywhere.

 

[Figaro]

I'd say that the geography and economics of the Soviet Union make it simply a rough comparison. Soviets, for instance, did not need as much to be a superpower, since they were always close to the action. They are literally in Europe, Middle East and East Asia. They're also very close to North America.

Meanwhile China is isolated in East Asia and just like the US, has to project power to get anywhere.

Exactly. The only Soviet build up really necessary was that of their army and air force, which is comparatively easier than a naval buildup like that of the US or China currently. The Soviet navy was primarily defensive oriented and overall was not really a match for NATO (their submarines were the most dangerous followed by the cruisers). China catching up with the US would be a lot easier if it was primarily they were primarily a land country (designing/producing tanks are still much easier than surface or sub-surface vessels).

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Exactly. The only Soviet build up really necessary was that of their army and air force, which is comparatively easier than a naval buildup like that of the US or China currently. The Soviet navy was primarily defensive oriented and overall was not really a match for NATO (their submarines were the most dangerous followed by the cruisers). China catching up with the US would be a lot easier if it was primarily they were primarily a land country (designing/producing tanks are still much easier than surface or sub-surface vessels).

it is not all bad. Being isolated means that there's little existential danger to the homeland. This became even more true after China secured the last 3 loose ends in East Asia: North Korea, Vietnam and the South China Sea, precluding the possibility of a 1930's style Japanese buildup and invasion.

Now there's nowhere to invade China from: North Korea blocks invasion from South Korea, Vietnam is socialist and is unlikely to allow foreign troops to station there, and even if it did, the island airbases in the South China Sea can stop troop sealift to Vietnam. An amphibious invasion of China from a buildup in Taiwan is even more laughable since nobody can sealift enough troops to compete with the PLA. All other borders are mountain/desert (northwest) mountain/glacial (India) or mountain/jungle (Myanmar), or with Russia, which also won't allow an invasion force to land.